Tree of Life

Deb 10 Me 9

We’d been seeing the previews for this for quite a while and it looked like it would be interesting just from the visual and musical point of view. It was. It also looked like it might be some heavy handed attempt at finding the meaning of life or an “art film” that was pretty but about as deep as a birdbath. It might be all those things but it’s also a good movie. I didn’t think the printed synopsis painted a very accurate picture of the movie and based on that, it doesn’t sound very good. It is. For me it was sort of Santini meets 2001 with a bit of City of Angels added in.

From the beginning I liked the tempo and level they created. It was whisper quiet at the beginning and it compelled you to listen carefully, look carefully, and get sucked right into the story. They indicated information rather than spell everything out and it worked well. Most of the story was about kids in the late 1950s, and the kids they got for actors were really amazing. But their direction was really noteworthy. The way they moved, got off their bikes, played and hollered was really authentic. The look of the movie had you thinking you were there or at least watching home movies of being there. Clothes, furniture, cars, all the “stuff” was period correct (except for a couple Tonka pieces) and really thoroughly researched. This level of detail added to the credibility of the story.

The 2001 parts worked well and felt like part of the movie. These were the ethereal and imaginative scenes we saw in the previews. I can imagine a lesser filmmaker trying to pull this off and not getting the cohesive qualities this guy achieved. I liked these elements.

The City of Angels element was the least developed and therefore the most confusing, but there were only a couple issues there and not enough to distract from the overall story.

When we left (the last ones out of the theater), the usher asked us what we thought. He had seen it four times and was interested in what old people thought of it. He told that it was the most visually exciting film that has been made in his 24 years of living and he wanted us to love it too. I thought about it, and I can’t remember anything since 1987 that beats it, so hats off to the usher, and to the filmmaker who has made a neat movie for young and … us.

Submarine

Deb 10 Me 9

This one came out of the blue and the lobby poster looked interesting so we checked it out. It is set in Wales so there were some accent issues, but happily everything was intelligible. It’s a coming of age story about a delightfully wry kid and his coping with the world around him. He was sort of a cross between Harold (in Harold and Maude) and you. The characters were distinct and amusing, the situations all viable and the story telling was interesting and thorough. They did some stop action tricks in editing that would normally be a distraction, but here they were effectively used and added some visual interest. There were allegories and symbols used throughout that were really welcome additions, not just thrown in. It was just a genuine little movie, not one to break any box office records, but interesting, enjoyable and worth an evening out.

Midnight in Paris

Deb 10 Me 10

As always, this review is more about me than the movie. First off, I gotta tell you how tired I am of Woody Alllen’s whining. He heard this criticism from others too, so he cast other people to play him in his movies and their whining was obnoxious too; the insecure neurotic that dominates many of his movies just wears me out. I really enjoyed Woody’s movies from the ‘70s, the slapstick shtick, moving into new themes with Annie Hall, and maybe a touch of Manhattan. In the ‘80s he fell of a cinematic cliff and took my appreciation with him. There were occasions I’d go see his movies, he’s obviously very bright and talented, just so wimpy. Time after time I was bored with the same neurotic characters or the blatant attempts to counter them, that I gave up.

Well, he’s back. I sat down ready to hate it. The opening montage was way too long, then we meet the players, and they’re the same assholes that appear in the other movies. Owen Wilson is the Woody Allen substitute, but he has a likeable sincerity, and you feel like there’s hope for him (when Larry David played Woody, you just hoped it would end). It’s set in Paris, as the title might suggest, and that was refreshing too. After a bit, the same tired characters started to appear as old familiar faces you hadn’t seen in a spell and could put up with for a while.

Then, out of the blue, the real movie began. New players were introduced and a story line that was smart, compelling and entertaining as hell. My anti-Allen bias was being erased and replaced with genuine affection for this movie. It was beautifully shot, well researched and full of pleasant surprises. There was even a moral to the story.

There was nothing in the synopsis or the movie trailers that would indicate what this movie is really about, and I’m not about to tell you here. It was a risky marketing move that means positive word of mouth is the only way people will go see this movie. This thing turned me all the way around from a negative number to a legitimate 9 or 10.

I can see this movie starting a trend in films.